We don't have any evidence for the mind being a function of the brain. What we have is correlation, which is not causation. The idea that consciousness magically emerges once a critical level of complexity has been reached in the brain is baseless and unproven, and I would liken it to believing in Thor.
I'm not supporting substance dualism necessarily, but isn't most of this video one long argument from ignorance?
You seem to focus quite a bit on how the mind and body could (or maybe couldn't) interact, and therefore conclude that since we do not know "souls" cannot exist. I may have misunderstood, but that seems totally fallacious.
@AdamLore Nah, I'm not saying souls can't exist, just trying to shoot down stupid ideas when I see them. How does a nonphysical substance interact with a physical one? No one can satisfyingly answer that question, so it's a stupid idea that we need to throw out. It's nonsense.
Aren't you just starting at monism, though, and shooting said idea down because of our ignorance of how it works?
We could just as easily start with dualism and shoot down core aspects of monism.
It seems that if we start with our conclusion, and then dismiss something because it does not work with our pre-decided conclusion, and therefore conclude with the same conclusion we started with.. well, we didn't really get anywhere. It's basically just as assertion.
@AdamLore If what you're saying is true, I would like to hear how monism doesn't work? One starting place has to be more logical than the other, no? For me, it's starting with evidence.
I believe the mind is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the functioning of neural computation functions in the brain. Is that still dualism, or is it monism? The brain causes the mind, so they are causally linked, but I use "brain" to refer to the physical hardware of cells and brain tissue. I use "mind" to refer to the experience, perception, cognition, and thought that arises from the functions of the former; we know that specific parts of the brain are responsible for certain functions.
Okay...But you are expressing the relationship from the macrocasium to the microcosium...But in dualism there is a begining of the universe, and an end. That there are cheatas on the earth or they're all dead...In monist you can't change shit, the universe is and always willbe, and never started...in idealism (Cooler extreme) there only the mind and a side affect is false ideas...The reason why monist are wrong is because you can lie, you can change the course of fate...You tell me what you are
I don't like these arbitrary labels you're trying to apply. I just explained above exactly what my beliefs are. I don't see at all how the relationship between the mind and brain is supposed to relate to the question of the beginning or end of the universe. That is an empirical question for cosmologists and physicists, not for philosophers of mind or neuroscientists or psychologists.
urbster, I'm no substance dualist, but I think you really could have made a better video - perhaps addressing migkillertwo's points instead of just aimlessly ranting? I mean that in the best possible way.
Thanks. I'm actually in the middle of about 3 books on this topic right now so I will have a lot more to say in the future. Migkiller has no idea how the brain works and never bothers to talk about science whatsoever. Most of the time he is not even worth engaging. Although the video has been up for a few days I wasn't sure I wanted to tag it as a response. I did, eventually, even though you're right, I didn't really ever directly address his points. This is just the beginning. :)
The way the brain functions is irrelevant. All you've discussed here is the easy problem of consciousness. Explain how to solve the hard problem. Explain how we can have personal identity over time without some type of mental substance.
Qualia's not really a big deal. I don't see a problem with denying the "hard problem" altogether-- ultimately, it's an empirical question about computer science and AI. Once we're able to simulate a working brain inside of a computer we'll have those answers. Have you read Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"?
You can check out the wikipedia entry on the book itself which gives a short summary. But basically Dennett argues that qualia don't exist. You'll have to read the book to get the full picture, though. It's not something I could explain in youtube comments, or even in a whole video. Alternatively check out the user LennyBound who has posted a lot of videos of Dennett and others discussing consciousness.
Ok. Thanks. I've got to say though, how can qualia not exist? That's saying that there's no first person experience at all... I guess I'll have to check out the book.
Who said you even had to watch all of it? The soul OUGHT to be part of science. Metaphysics is useless for this sort of thing; we can posit all the imaginary souls we want and they're all just as useless as the first. I explicitly denounced metaphysics for this purpose if you actually paid any attention at all. It's like saying "vitalism belongs to metaphysics, not science." Vitalism is not really legitimate metaphysics; furthermore, science can inform our metaphysics.
QualiaSoup is awesome, his Substance Dualism video is probably one of the best vids on YT. RationalRoundtable probably has the best defense of Substance Dualism, it is still unconvincing, and relies heavily on interchangeable, vague words like 'soul' and speculation about string theory.
To me, substance dualism is fear of death. Humans think they are immortal, it's totally irrational. All my religious friends get very angry if I say this. They refuse to embrace their destruction!
yeah Descartes is generally considered to have been retarded. that sets a pretty bar for you.
cunnidvd 3 months ago
ps: and I'm pro soul.
Metactyl 4 months ago
computers are the perfect analogy to the human. think about it.
Metactyl 4 months ago
We don't have any evidence for the mind being a function of the brain. What we have is correlation, which is not causation. The idea that consciousness magically emerges once a critical level of complexity has been reached in the brain is baseless and unproven, and I would liken it to believing in Thor.
AnduinX 5 months ago
@V0NDAGE Prove me wrong; then you might have credibility.
urbster1 11 months ago
The drug trip thing was awesome!
I'm not supporting substance dualism necessarily, but isn't most of this video one long argument from ignorance?
You seem to focus quite a bit on how the mind and body could (or maybe couldn't) interact, and therefore conclude that since we do not know "souls" cannot exist. I may have misunderstood, but that seems totally fallacious.
AdamLore 1 year ago
@AdamLore Nah, I'm not saying souls can't exist, just trying to shoot down stupid ideas when I see them. How does a nonphysical substance interact with a physical one? No one can satisfyingly answer that question, so it's a stupid idea that we need to throw out. It's nonsense.
urbster1 1 year ago
@urbster1
Aren't you just starting at monism, though, and shooting said idea down because of our ignorance of how it works?
We could just as easily start with dualism and shoot down core aspects of monism.
It seems that if we start with our conclusion, and then dismiss something because it does not work with our pre-decided conclusion, and therefore conclude with the same conclusion we started with.. well, we didn't really get anywhere. It's basically just as assertion.
AdamLore 1 year ago
@AdamLore If what you're saying is true, I would like to hear how monism doesn't work? One starting place has to be more logical than the other, no? For me, it's starting with evidence.
urbster1 1 year ago
@urbster1
I don't have an argument against monism. I mean, we obviously seem to experience qualia, which appear to be non-physical.
My opinion is that we simply do not know enough yet to rule either system out.
It's all one big mind-fuck to me, but I still have a bit to read on the matter.
AdamLore 1 year ago
I think I agree, but that was a very confused and disorganized presentation.
Just saw another vid on this subject:
watch?v=gcEV_HsIdBI
You might find it worth a look.
voidCaptain 2 years ago
So you believe in monism, that there was no begining and there will be no end, that there is fate, and that you cannot change your fate?
studentoflife01 2 years ago
So you have not taken any care to watch any other videos on my channel?
urbster1 2 years ago
There is idealism, dualism, and monism...If you're not a dualist, and you're not an monist, are you an idealist?
studentoflife01 2 years ago
I believe the mind is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the functioning of neural computation functions in the brain. Is that still dualism, or is it monism? The brain causes the mind, so they are causally linked, but I use "brain" to refer to the physical hardware of cells and brain tissue. I use "mind" to refer to the experience, perception, cognition, and thought that arises from the functions of the former; we know that specific parts of the brain are responsible for certain functions.
urbster1 2 years ago
Okay...But you are expressing the relationship from the macrocasium to the microcosium...But in dualism there is a begining of the universe, and an end. That there are cheatas on the earth or they're all dead...In monist you can't change shit, the universe is and always willbe, and never started...in idealism (Cooler extreme) there only the mind and a side affect is false ideas...The reason why monist are wrong is because you can lie, you can change the course of fate...You tell me what you are
studentoflife01 2 years ago
I don't like these arbitrary labels you're trying to apply. I just explained above exactly what my beliefs are. I don't see at all how the relationship between the mind and brain is supposed to relate to the question of the beginning or end of the universe. That is an empirical question for cosmologists and physicists, not for philosophers of mind or neuroscientists or psychologists.
urbster1 2 years ago
urbster; you are an idiot. Good day sir.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Hahah thanks. You're an idiot too. Merry Christmas!
urbster1 2 years ago
urbster, I'm no substance dualist, but I think you really could have made a better video - perhaps addressing migkillertwo's points instead of just aimlessly ranting? I mean that in the best possible way.
tehknologik 2 years ago
Thanks. I'm actually in the middle of about 3 books on this topic right now so I will have a lot more to say in the future. Migkiller has no idea how the brain works and never bothers to talk about science whatsoever. Most of the time he is not even worth engaging. Although the video has been up for a few days I wasn't sure I wanted to tag it as a response. I did, eventually, even though you're right, I didn't really ever directly address his points. This is just the beginning. :)
urbster1 2 years ago
The way the brain functions is irrelevant. All you've discussed here is the easy problem of consciousness. Explain how to solve the hard problem. Explain how we can have personal identity over time without some type of mental substance.
otakurocklee 2 years ago
The 'hard problem' of consciousness usually refers to qualia; is that what you're asking about here?
urbster1 2 years ago
Yes.
otakurocklee 2 years ago
Qualia's not really a big deal. I don't see a problem with denying the "hard problem" altogether-- ultimately, it's an empirical question about computer science and AI. Once we're able to simulate a working brain inside of a computer we'll have those answers. Have you read Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"?
urbster1 2 years ago
I haven't read that book. What kind of experiment can be designed to see if a computer is experiencing qualia? Qualia are first person...
otakurocklee 2 years ago
You can check out the wikipedia entry on the book itself which gives a short summary. But basically Dennett argues that qualia don't exist. You'll have to read the book to get the full picture, though. It's not something I could explain in youtube comments, or even in a whole video. Alternatively check out the user LennyBound who has posted a lot of videos of Dennett and others discussing consciousness.
urbster1 2 years ago
Ok. Thanks. I've got to say though, how can qualia not exist? That's saying that there's no first person experience at all... I guess I'll have to check out the book.
otakurocklee 2 years ago
"soul" belongs to metaphysics, not science. Your video is over 10 minutes long and that's all you need to say.
gpattt 2 years ago
Who said you even had to watch all of it? The soul OUGHT to be part of science. Metaphysics is useless for this sort of thing; we can posit all the imaginary souls we want and they're all just as useless as the first. I explicitly denounced metaphysics for this purpose if you actually paid any attention at all. It's like saying "vitalism belongs to metaphysics, not science." Vitalism is not really legitimate metaphysics; furthermore, science can inform our metaphysics.
urbster1 2 years ago
QualiaSoup is awesome, his Substance Dualism video is probably one of the best vids on YT. RationalRoundtable probably has the best defense of Substance Dualism, it is still unconvincing, and relies heavily on interchangeable, vague words like 'soul' and speculation about string theory.
To me, substance dualism is fear of death. Humans think they are immortal, it's totally irrational. All my religious friends get very angry if I say this. They refuse to embrace their destruction!
Good vid
embracedestruction 2 years ago
Thanks!
urbster1 2 years ago
1:00-1:28 freaked me the fuck out. I watched thsi drunk.
GBart 2 years ago
hahaha :D
miglegtr 2 years ago
@GBart I created this high
urbster1 2 years ago
Evidence for the existence for souls? What are you crazy? We don't need no stinking evidence for the existence of souls. YOU DREAM DON'T YOU?
nuclearnight 2 years ago
@nuclearnight I dream about the existence of souls, that's all the logic I need
urbster1 2 years ago
My video quality is all over the fucking place too.
smpunditz 2 years ago
you know what else is retarded?
humans.
oldhacks 2 years ago
@oldhacks Good idea
urbster1 2 years ago
Hahaha. I liked the voice which kept talking about drugs...and your little song at the end. Good stuff. =)
thedefendingchamp 2 years ago